Ukraine’s Cheap Drones Are Decimating Russia’s Tanks

More than two-thirds of the Russian tanks that Ukraine’s military has destroyed in recent months have been taken out using first-person-view (FPV) drones, a NATO official told Foreign Policy, an increasing sign of Kyiv’s reliance on the unpiloted aircraft as it awaits more artillery ammunition from the United States and other Western countries. 

With much-needed funding and artillery rounds held up in Washington, the Ukrainian military has largely turned to FPV drones to carry out anti-tank attacks. Ukrainian troops operate the drones via a controller and are able to watch the machines’ “suicide” attacks on Russian vehicles through video feeds, which now play on a loop on Ukrainian social media channels on Telegram and other platforms.

In the third year of Russia’s full-scale invasion, FPV drones have become nearly ubiquitous on the Ukrainian battlefield. Many of them can carry 10 pounds of explosives or more, and after nearly 780 days of nonstop war, drone pilots on both sides have gotten plenty of practice. 

“I used to shoot such ‘cinematic’ videos with the help of FPV-drones before the war,” Ukrainian documentary filmmaker Anton Ptushkin posted on X (formerly Twitter) last November. “Now we use FPV to defend our land.” 

But for every success, there are nearly as many blooper reel-worthy incidents. These aren’t the $20 million-a-piece Predator drones that the United States uses to hunt terrorist targets in the Middle East. These are inexpensive off-the-shelf drones that go for $400. They have cheap cameras, making them more difficult to aim at night or in cloudy weather, and they often carry improvised munitions such as grenades or homebuilt bombs, which sometimes detonate midflight. Some are duds. In one video shared on Telegram, a Ukrainian FPV drone gets stuck in the front window of a Russian minivan and doesn’t explode. Others hit Russian quadcopters and tanks that have already been abandoned.

“What we’re seeing probably is a fraction of what’s actually happening,” said Samuel Bendett, an advisor at CNA and a member of the think tank’s Russia studies program. “FPV drones have a short range. So even if the Ukrainians lack enough long-range artillery, they can only use a few drones up to 10 kilometers [about 6 miles] because that’s the normal range.”

Analysts tracking the Ukrainian military believe the attacks are having mixed results. Rob Lee, a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Eurasia program who last traveled to Ukraine to embed last November, said the overall accuracy of FPV drones is less than 50 percent. It’s an experienced pilot who is going to score a “kill” of a tank—and the soldiers inside—with an FPV drone, not a newbie.

Even those drones that get through Russia’s increasingly sophisticated, if unchic, countermeasures—boxes of signals equipment strapped to tanks—might not deal a fatal blow. “You usually don’t kill a tank the first few times,” Lee said. “It can take 10 or more [FPV drones] to kill a tank.” 

Still, Russia has a good reason to cover up its tanks with camouflage and jamming equipment, Lee said. It is running low on armored vehicles and tanks. If Ukraine keeps attriting at this rate and Russia keeps sending in more tanks to replace the destroyed ones at the rate it has been, the Kremlin could lose its numerical edge in tanks, which could make it more difficult for the Russians to carry out offensive operations in the future. 

But Russia still has more troops. “The issue is that Russia’s getting a lot of manpower,” Lee added.

The all-out use of cheap drones indicates that the Ukrainians are turning to increasingly desperate measures to improvise weapons to fight back the Russian assault, which has moved farther west into the contested areas of Donetsk. Ukraine is using a network of microphones—similar to the one you might find on your iPhone—to sense incoming targets. The microphones are good enough to classify what type of munition is coming in, what direction it’s going, and what trajectory it’s on just by using acoustics. 

And with limited air defense munitions, Ukrainian troops have rigged heavy machines with sensors to shoot down most of the Iranian-made Shahed suicide drones that are overflying their positions. The NATO official, speaking anonymously based on conditions set by the alliance, said Ukraine’s hit rate against Shahed drones with simple machine guns and small caliber weapons is about 80 percent. It’s not a complete fix, though: Ukrainian officials have spent recent days urging the United States to send more Patriot air defense systems. 

And the FPV drones are not a match for artillery ammunition when it comes to keeping up a high rate of fire or for creating explosive effects. They can also be more expensive. “You cannot replace a 155 [mm] shell,” one Ukrainian official said. “It’s like replacing a Kalashnikov with a small gun.” And artillery is immune to electronic warfare. It’s just a bombshell that’s flying through the air. 

The rapid pace of innovation for drones has made U.S. military leaders second-guess big, expensive drone programs. The future, officials think, will be cheap and attritable. 

“I don’t think we could buy a drone and say it’s going to be in our formation for the next 20 years,” U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George said. “We can’t do that.”

It’s not clear how effective they will be in the long term. But like improvised explosive devices in the Iraq War, cheap drones have revolutionized the battlefield—for now.

“It’s possible that any vehicle, any system, any soldier that moves on the Ukrainian battlefield right now can be seen, observed, and ultimately hit with a [unmanned aerial vehicle],” said Bendett, the CNA advisor. “There’s no such thing as just moving around uncontested anymore.”